Union to mount challenge against drug tests for miners
A union plans to mount a legal challenge against urine testing for drugs on mine sites.
The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union has called it intrusive and degrading and wants urine tests replaced with saliva tests.
Secretary of the West Australian branch, Steve McCartney, says saliva tests are used by police and the judiciary and should be implemented on mine sites.
"Now we've got the technology that proves saliva testing works, why would we have our members subjected the indignity of having to do a urine test?" he said.
"Not only a urine test, but a urine test in company (of others) or under camera surveillance.
"So there's an issue for our members that's there somebody from the company standing around while you're urinating in front of them, while there's a test that proves the same fitness for work by simply putting a stick in your mouth and checking your saliva.
"Why should they be subjected to it?"
Saliva tests pick up readings of drugs that are currently in the system, while urine tests can give readings on drugs that have been used some time previously.
"My understanding is the saliva tests meet an Australian industry standard and it's supported by the West Australian police and criminal courts as a legitimate test for readiness to either drive a vehicle, or, in this case, work on the job," Mr McCartney said.
"We believe there's a lot of other things they could be concentrating on around workplace safety to save more lives than trying to make our members expose their genitals and urinate in a cup, when there's a test that can do the same thing."
Tests are for screening purposes only
The director of the National Drug Research Institute says he understands why mine workers would prefer to saliva testing to urine testing for drugs.
However, Professor Steve Allsop says it's also important that people understand that either test is for screening purposes only.
"They would argue that a saliva test is less invasive and it does detect the presence of (any drug in your system), rather than what you've been doing in your own time.
"The counter argument is that urine testing is a more established mechanism. Some say it's more accurate (than saliva tests) and others argue there are limitations to saliva testing.
"What's important is that neither of these tests can be taken as a single indicator that a person has used drugs.
"They're actually screening tests, and the Australian standard demands that these screening tests are followed up by a confirmatory analysis.
"That's because screening tests, by their very nature, are very sensitive, so they can result in false positives."
Mining companies won't buy into drug testing argument
Steve McCartney from the AMWU is on the record as saying 'BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Woodside are on notice'.
However none of these companies would respond other than brief statements: BHP Billiton referred the ABC to its internal policies.
Rio Tinto stated “we understand that the urine testing system is more reliable then the saliva based systems and until this changes from a safety perspective we will continue with our existing processes.”
Woodside declined to comment on the issue.